hmmmmmmmm

"In an impressive example of the gap of understanding between legal officials and technology, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian 'found that a computer server's RAM, or random-access memory, is a tangible document that can be stored and must be turned over in a lawsuit.' ZDNet, among others, reports on the ruling and its potential for invasion of privacy."

Click to expand...

:shock:

What's the legality of requiring them to START creating documentation (as an example, or if they ask them to) OR asking them to CREATE documentation that does not currently exist?

Top Poster Of Month

I think it really sucks that you can be a judge and make decisions on something that you have NO idea about, regardless of knowledge of the law.

Click to expand...

LOL, look at congress, they actually pass laws governing our tubes. Actually I think its not as hard as you might guess, they're just doing the right thing. It would be completely unethical not to vote for a bill after someone has paid you to do so.

The last time I heard this exact comment was in a situation as bad as this judge's ruling:

A married couple, Jane & John Doe, had some candles burning. These were large candles and had quite a bit of melted wax around the flame. Jane, in an effort to clean up, dumped the melted wax down the sink. John was just about speechless, the only thing he could say was "Wow, just wow."

I think it really sucks that you can be a judge and make decisions on something that you have NO idea about, regardless of knowledge of the law.

Click to expand...

LOL, look at congress, they actually pass laws governing our tubes. Actually I think its not as hard as you might guess, they're just doing the right thing. It would be completely unethical not to vote for a bill after someone has paid you to do so.

THe judge is basically saying "you CAN log the stuff we're asking you to log, so there's no excuse saying 'oh, we didn't log that' - with the worst case scenario being you need to take a contstant read of RAM and store it.

I think if you read all materials presented, you COULD make an argument that the judge understands shutting down a computer to remove the ram is bad (in this case), but then again maybe not...

Click to expand...

Just saying... Also, speaking of context, what is the "output" of the ram going to look like? It's not going to be nice and neat. How is it converted, won't there be a bunch of junk in there (pertaining to IPs) that have NO relevance what they are looking for (people downloading)? DNS servers, people connecting to the sites, etc? I mean it's not illegal to GO to torrentspy.com. How do the torrents work? You aren't DLing FROM torrentspy directly, just the torrent file, correct?

The judge is basically saying "you CAN log the stuff we're asking you to log, so there's no excuse saying 'oh, we didn't log that' - with the worst case scenario being you need to take a contstant read of RAM and store it.

Click to expand...

But what is the legality of making the CREATE documentation? Will that hold up?

Depends on intent. If you only intend to download the torrent file to examine the contents, that's fine. If you're doing it to further your attempt to download the movie, they'd have you on an intent/attempt charge and perhaps a conspiracy charge if anyone wanted to tackle the conspiracy of one issues.